Beyond Good Intentions: Guidelines for Power-Conscious Gender Research by Men Academics

Abstract

Researchers who identify as men that conduct gender equity research in academic contexts face unique methodological and ethical challenges stemming from their positionality within institutional power structures. This paper presents a theoretically grounded framework for conducting power-conscious qualitative research across gender differences, drawing from both personal experience, and broader literature on feminist methodology, critical theory, and reflexive practice. Through critical examination of how gendered power dynamics manifests in academic settings, research relationships, and intersectional considerations, I develop four key guidelines for ethical research practice: (1) understanding gendered power structures and their effects in academia, (2) building equitable research relationships across power differentials, (3) conducting power-conscious interview practices, and (4) engaging in critical reflexivity about privilege and positionality. Rather than positioning these guidelines as exceptional practices, I argue they represent baseline ethical obligations for researchers working across significant structural power differentials. This framework contributes to methodological literature on conducting ethical research across gender differences while emphasising that power-conscious approaches and critical attention to researcher positionality should be understood as fundamental components of rigorous research design.

Introduction

Throughout my research journey interviewing women academics, I’ve repeatedly confronted the complex interplay between gender, power, and marginalisation in academic contexts. When a participant paused mid-sentence during an interview about departmental dynamics and asked, “Do you really want to hear about this?”, I recognised a pivotal moment where my identity as a researcher who identified as a man directly influenced her willingness to share her experiences with me. This encounter, amongst others throughout my research with women academics, highlights the complex methodological and ethical challenges that arise when researchers hold structural privilege relative to their participants. Such moments reveal how gender-based power dynamics can profoundly shape research interactions, potentially silencing the very voices that research aims to amplify.

To address these methodological challenges, within this paper, I propose a framework organised around four key dimensions that researchers who identify as men must navigate when conducting gender equity research: (1) understanding gendered power structures and their effects in academia, (2) building equitable research relationships across power differentials, (3) conducting power-conscious interview practices, and (4) engaging in critical reflexivity about privilege and positionality. These guidelines, which emerge organically from empirical research encounters detailed later in the paper, represent fundamental ethical obligations rather than optional considerations for researchers working across significant structural power differentials. While power-conscious research approaches have gained recognition across various fields, specific methodological guidance for navigating gender-based power dynamics in academic research remains underdeveloped. The need for such frameworks is particularly urgent given the persistent structural inequalities that women academics experience, including systematic exclusion from informal networks, chronic undermining of expertise, and institutional cultures that privilege masculine ways of knowing and being. These challenges reflect broader concerns about who produces knowledge about marginalised groups and how such knowledge is validated within academic contexts.

This theoretically grounded framework for conducting power-conscious qualitative research with women academics draws from both personal experiences, and the broader literature on feminist methodology, critical theory, and reflexive practice. Rather than offering a purely theoretical exploration, this framework integrates insights from my empirical research conducting interviews with women academics about their experiences within Australian higher education, providing concrete strategies that researchers who identify as men can implement when studying gender equity across significant power differentials. The specific contribution of this work is threefold. First, it addresses how researchers who identify as men navigate complex power dynamics when studying women’s experiences of marginalisation in academic settings. This contributes to growing literature on reflexive methodology and cross-gender research ethics. Second, this framework positions power-conscious approaches as fundamental ethical obligations for researchers working across significant structural privilege differentials, extending existing scholarship on research on researcher positionality by providing concrete implementation strategies. Third, this work demonstrates how established feminist research principles can guide ethical practice when applied to researchers who hold structural privilege in relation to their participants, contributing to ongoing discussions about how privileged positions can be leveraged responsibly in social justice research while emphasising that power-conscious approaches and critical attention to researcher positionality should be understood as essential components of rigorous research design rather than optional considerations. Building on work by scholars like Gemignani (2011) and Dery (2020), I propose these guidelines represent fundamental ethical obligations for researchers working across significant power differentials rather than exceptional practices. To understand how this framework emerged from and builds upon feminist methodological traditions, we need to examine the patriarchal structures that necessitate such approaches, followed by an exploration of my own positionality within this work.

Patriarchal Structures in Academia and Feminist Research Responses

The gender-based challenges and traumas experienced by women academics that necessitate this framework are not isolated incidents but rather manifestations of deeply embedded patriarchal structures within higher education institutions. Patriarchy, as both an ideology and institutional system, operates through the privileging of masculine values, perspectives, and ways of knowing while systematically marginalising women’s voices and experiences (Ahmed, 2012; Hooks, 2000; Lorde, 1984). Within academic contexts, patriarchal structures manifested through hierarchical power arrangements that historically positioned men as the default knowledge producers and gatekeepers of intellectual authority (Blackmore, 2014; Harding, 1990; Smith, 1987).

Academic institutions were designed by and for men, creating what Acker (1990) terms gendered organisations where seemingly neutral policies and practices systematically advantage men while disadvantaging women. These patriarchal foundations persist in contemporary neoliberal academia through competitive individualism, distanced ‘objective’ research practices, and hierarchical relationships that reproduce broader gender power dynamics ¹ (Ahmed, 2012; Morley, 2013; Sprague, 2016). The persistence of these structures creates what Ahmed (2012) describes as institutional atmospheres that can feel hostile or unwelcoming to women, particularly those who challenge existing arrangements.

These power-conscious research guidelines presented in this framework emerge directly from feminist methodological traditions that have long challenged patriarchal approaches to knowledge production, with contemporary scholars like Ahmed (2012) demonstrating how seemingly progressive institutions continue to create atmospheres that privilege masculine ways of being. Feminist researchers have consistently argued that traditional research methods often reproduce rather than challenge existing power structures, particularly when applied to studying marginalised populations (Harding, 1990; Reinharz & Davidman, 1992). The principles underlying this framework – reflexivity about researcher positionality, attention to power dynamics, collaborative rather than extractive research relationships, and centering participant voices – represent core tenets of feminist research methodology developed over several decades of scholarship.

Feminist standpoint theory, as articulated by scholars like Harding (1990) and Smith (1987), provides crucial theoretical grounding for understanding why men researchers studying women’s experiences must approach this work differently than traditional academic research. This theory posits that marginalised groups, including women, possess epistemic advantages in understanding systems of oppression due to their lived experiences of subordination. For men researchers, this necessitates what Haraway (1988) calls situated knowledge, an explicit acknowledgement of our particular standpoint and the ways our social location shapes our understanding. Rather than claiming objectivity, feminist methodology demands that researchers, particularly those in positions of privilege, engage in continuous reflexivity about how their identity influences every aspect of the research process.

The emphasis on power-conscious approaches within this framework builds on feminist ethics of care and relational methodologies that prioritise participant wellbeing and agency (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). Feminist researchers have long recognised that the research process itself can either reproduce harm or contribute to healing, depending on how power is negotiated within research relationships (Fine & Weis, 1996). The guidelines for establishing safety, maintaining ongoing consent, and addressing power differentials reflect feminist commitments to non-exploitative research practices that honour participants’ expertise about their own experiences.

This framework should therefore be understood not as a novel methodological innovation but as an application of established feminist research principles to the specific challenges faced by men researchers working across gender differences in academic contexts. By explicitly grounding these guidelines in feminist theory and practice, I acknowledge the intellectual debt this work owes to generations of feminist scholars who have developed methodological approaches specifically designed to challenge patriarchal knowledge production. The goal is not to position men researchers as pioneers in gender-sensitive methodology but rather to demonstrate how established feminist principles can guide ethical research practice when applied by researchers who hold structural privilege in relation to their participants.

From Research Experience to Framework Development

This framework draws on insights from a series of qualitative studies I conducted examining women’s academic experiences and identities in Australian public higher education, with particular attention to how power dynamics shaped both the content and process of research interactions. Between 2018 and 2021, I interviewed 52 women academics across early- (n = 17), middle- (n = 18), and later-career (n = 17) stages from Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) disciplines, exploring how they conceptualised their academic identities within institutional power structures (Phillips et al., 2023a, 2023b; Phillips & Dzidic, 2023), while simultaneously examining how my position as a researcher who identifies as a man influenced these research relationships. Employing a social constructionist, critical, Foucauldian-informed approach, I analysed these interviews using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis to identify how different subject positions were made available to women through institutional discourse. For early-career women, these included positions such as The Compliant Woman, The Strategic Woman, and The Rebellious Woman (Phillips et al., 2023a). Middle-career women navigated positions including The Pragmatic Woman, The Prototypical Woman, The Credible Woman, The Super Woman, and The Sacrificial Woman (Phillips et al., 2023b). Later-career women navigated positions including The Insecure Woman, The Expert Academic, The Reflective Academic, and The Disengaging Academic (Phillips & Dzidic, 2023). Ethical approval for all phases of this research was obtained from Curtin University's Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2018-0606 and HRE2018-0606-01).

The research process revealed specific methodological challenges requiring adaptive strategies when participants questioned my understanding (“How can you, as a man, really understand what we go through in academia?”) or, expressed concerns about perpetuating existing power dynamics. These interactions became critical learning opportunities that necessitated developing concrete approaches for recognising and addressing power differentials, implementing flexible consent process, creating protocols for challenging traditional researcher authority, and maintaining structured reflexivity about how my responses might be interpreted through gendered lenses. Rather than treating these adaptions as exceptional circumstances, these experiences demonstrated the need for systematic approaches to ethical research across significant power differentials. The framework presented in this paper emerges directly from these methodological insights, integrating feminist theoretical principles with practical implementation strategies derived from actual research encounters.

Researcher Positionality within Feminist Methodology

Drawing from critical theories of reflexivity and positionality (Klarsfeld, 2014; Pease, 2015), I examine how identifying as a man, and as a researcher, both privileges and challenges my position within gender equity work. Like many scholars entering diversity research, my journey began not through personal marginalisation but through professional opportunity, yet evolved into deeper engagement with critical consciousness about power, privilege, and social justice (Klarsfeld, 2014). As a Lecturer in Psychology at Curtin University, my approach to gender equity researcher has been shaped by multiple intersecting identities and roles. My position as a white, cisgender man, and academic, grants significant institutional privilege, while my identity as a gay man provides insight into systemic marginalisation. This complexity is further nuanced by my professional roles, which require constant navigation between institutional power and advocacy for change. These experiences inform my current work spanning critical community and social psychology, with a focus on qualitative methodologies, gender dynamics, and knowledge construction. The questions directed to me throughout this research have centred on my experiences in academia as a man compared to women’s experiences, my ability to understand or represent women’s academic experiences, and ways that I, as a man, can assist in mitigating the prejudices and marginalisation women face in academia. Identifying as a cis-gender man appears to challenge the credibility of my work surrounding women’s academic identities and experiences inherently. Drawing on Ademolu’s (2024) framework of critical reflexivity, I recognise that the complexity of researchers’ positionality extends beyond simple insider/outsider dichotomies, with various aspects of our identity creating shifting dynamics of power in research relationships that require continuous examination throughout the research process (de Smet et al., 2020).

The Nuanced Role of Men in Gender-Based Research

The inclusion of men in gender-based research creates fundamental tensions about who produces knowledge about marginalised groups and how such knowledge is validated within academic contexts (Alcoff, 1991). Historically, academia has privileged men’s voices as default producers of objective knowledge while positioning women’s experiences as subjective or lacking rigour (Sprague, 2016). This legacy creates a paradoxical situation where men researchers studying women’s experiences must recognise how our presence potentially reinforces the gendered power dynamics we aim to challenge. Three intersecting challenges emerge from this positioning. First, the expert problem demonstrates how men are more likely to be recognised as authoritative experts while women’s expertise is questioned, even on topics directly related to women’s experiences (Flood & Howson, 2015). As one participant in my research pointedly asked, “Won’t your colleagues take this research more seriously because you’re the one doing it, rather than a woman?”. Second, co-optation risks emerge when privileged researchers may appropriate or colonise marginalised groups’ experiences while positioning themselves as saviours or experts (Mohanty, 2003). Third, the dilemma of representation remains central – when members of privileged groups speak for or about marginalised groups, this carries implications about authority, authenticity, and power that cannot be resolved through good intentions alone (Alcoff, 1991). Rather than positioning these challenges as insurmountable barriers or avoiding engagement entirely, they demand methodological approaches that explicitly acknowledge and work to transform power differentials. The framework below treats questions of representation not as peripheral concerns but as central organising principles that must be actively negotiated throughout the research process.

Framework Overview and Methodological Approach

These complex considerations regarding men researchers in gender equity work, as explored by scholars such as Pease (2011), Klarsfeld (2014), and Flood and Howson (2015), highlight the necessity for a methodologically rigorous and ethically sound approach when studying women’s experiences across significant structural power differentials. Rather than positioning these challenges as insurmountable barriers, I propose that they demand a more thoughtful, reflexive research approach, one that explicitly acknowledges and works to transform power differentials while providing concrete strategies for navigating them responsibly. The framework presented in this paper emerges directly from this tension between the potential contributions men researchers can make and the ethical complexities inherent in our structurally privileged position within academic institutions.

By establishing clear guidelines for power-conscious qualitative research across gender differences, informed by established frameworks (Muhammad et al., 2015; Shaw et al., 2020), this approach seeks to engage transparently with dilemmas of representation while actively working to redistribute rather than reproduce existing power structures. With these considerations in mind, I now turn to an overview of the framework’s key dimensions and methodological foundations. The proposed framework focuses on four key dimensions that researchers who identify as men must navigate:

1. Understanding Gendered Power Structures and Their Effects in Academia: Developing a comprehensive understanding of how institutional power operates to marginalise women in academic contexts, including both systemic mechanisms and their varied manifestations across different career stages and institutional settings.

2. Building Equitable Research Relationships Across Power Differentials: Creating research spaces that acknowledge existing power imbalances while deliberately working to redistribute authority and transform, rather than reinforce, traditional researcher-participant structures.

3. Conducting Power-Conscious Interview Practices: Implementing interview approaches that maintain heightened awareness of how gender-based power dynamics shape research interactions, with particular attention to how seemingly neutral research practices can reproduce institutional patterns of marginalisation.

4. Engaging in Critical Reflexivity About Privilege and Positionality: Maintaining ongoing critical analysis of how structural privilege shapes all aspects of the research process, from design through dissemination, while developing appropriate support systems for managing the emotional complexity of this work.

These dimensions are operationalised for various contexts where men researchers engage in gender equity work, including qualitative research exploring women’s lived experiences in institutional settings, interview-based studies examining structural discrimination, participatory research projects with women co-researchers, research involving experiences of institutional marginalisation, and cross-gender mentoring relationships within academic hierarchies. Qualitative research seeks to understand how individuals perceive and make sense of their social reality, acknowledging that researchers’ structural positioning and viewpoints play an integral role in shaping knowledge production processes (Grossoehme, 2014). This methodological approach is particularly crucial when exploring experiences of institutional marginalisation, as it requires explicit attention to how power dynamics within research relationships may mirror the very structures being studied (Muhammad et al., 2015).

Power-conscious qualitative research recognises that all knowledge is produced from particular standpoints and that researchers who hold structural privilege must develop methodological approaches that actively challenge, rather than reproduce, existing hierarchies (Shaw et al., 2020). Rather than viewing social reality as static, this approach recognises that meanings and perceptions are shaped by power relations and require researchers to interpret experiences within their broader structural contexts while maintaining critical awareness of how their positioning influences the research process (Flick, 2022). When studying experiences that may include significant harm – including what may constitute power-based harm – this methodological approach helps ensure that research processes contribute to, rather than detract from, participant empowerment and institutional transformation.

Breaking New Ground: Power-Conscious Guidelines for Researchers Who Identify as Men in Gender Equity Research

The following framework addresses the complex challenges that researchers who identify as men face when studying women’s experiences in academia. Each guideline combines theoretical foundations with practical strategies, structured to provide both conceptual grounding and actionable approaches for conducting ethical, power-conscious research across gender differences. It is crucial to acknowledge that the very need for the guidelines reflects the ongoing inequities and power imbalances that characterise academia, even in supposedly progressive spaces. The fact that we must specifically outline how researchers who identify as men can ethically engage with women’s experiences of marginalisation points to the persistent centring and privileging of men’s voices in scholarship. As one senior academic who identifies as a woman pointedly asked me, “Why are you the one writing about this instead of a woman?”. This question has stayed with me throughout my career, reminding me that power-conscious approaches are necessary precisely because institutions of higher education continue to enact and perpetuate gender-based harms.

Even in writing this, I feel a sense of unease about being in the position of providing these guidelines as a researcher who identifies as a man. My intent is not to present myself as an expert or to suggest that these recommendations are exhaustive or definitive. Rather, I offer them as a starting point, an invitation for further dialogue and refinement in the service of more equitable and transformative scholarship. These guidelines are meant to be adapted, critiqued, and expanded upon in collaboration with the communities they aim to serve. The goal is not to establish a static set of rules, but to contribute to a dynamic, ongoing process of learning and growth in our research practices. By integrating theoretical frameworks with applied approaches, I aim to provide researchers who identify as men with both the conceptual understanding and practical tools necessary for conducting ethical gender equity research that explicitly addresses, rather than reproduces, existing power structures. The following sections present four integrated guidelines, each beginning with its theoretical underpinnings followed by practical strategies and applications from my research. This structure reflects the inseparable nature of theory and practice in power-conscious gender equity research, where theoretical understanding must directly inform methodological decisions, and where practical experiences continuously refine our theoretical frameworks.

Guideline 1: Understanding Gendered Power Structures and Their Effects in Academia

Theoretical Underpinnings: Power, Privilege, and Institutional Marginalisation

This guideline emerges from the recognition that effective cross-gender research requires researchers who identify as men to develop a sophisticated understanding of how institutional power structures create and maintain gender-based inequalities in academic settings. Rather than approaching women’s experiences as isolated individual challenges, this framework positions these experiences within broader structural analyses of how academic institutions systematically privilege masculine ways of knowing while marginalising women’s voices and contributions.

Institutional Power Structures

Academic institutions operate as gendered organisations where seemingly neutral policies and practices systematically advantage men while disadvantaging women (Acker, 1990). My research revealed how these structures manifest through hierarchical arrangements that historically positioned men as default knowledge producers (Phillips et al., 2023a), valorisation of competitive individualism over collaborative approaches (Phillips & Dzidic, 2023), and maintenance of networks and informal systems that exclude women from career-critical opportunities (Phillips et al., 2023b). The women academics I interviewed consistently described experiences of institutional marginalisation that reflected these broader structural patterns, from systematic exclusion from informal networks to chronic undermining of their expertise and contributions. Academic institutions carry deep histories of exclusion and discrimination that continue to shape present-day experiences (Phillips, 2024a). These historical patterns fundamentally shape institutional cultures through embedded practices and implicit norms, profoundly influence trust in academic systems, and affect how mentoring relationships and professional development unfold (Felten et al., 2016). The relative scarcity of senior women academics creates particular challenges in fields where women’s representation has historically been the lowest, often leading to what scholars’ term academic isolation (Phillips, 2024a). This historical context shapes fundamental feelings of belonging and safety within academic spaces, with women academics often reporting a persistent sense of being guests in men-dominated institutional spaces, requiring constant negotiation of their presence and legitimacy (Phillips, 2022). Understanding these institutional patterns is essential for recognising how research interactions may mirror broader power dynamics.

Everyday Manifestations of Power

My research demonstrated how gendered power operates through mechanisms that participants described as both pervasive and often invisible to those who benefit from existing structures. These have been reflected in additional research, and include systematic exclusion from informal but career-critical networks (Greguletz et al., 2019), chronic undermining of expertise in both subtle and overt ways (Franken et al., 2023), deliberate career sabotage through withholding information or resources (Serenko, 2020), institutional gaslighting that minimises or denies discriminatory experiences (Allam, 2024; Owusu-Kwarteng et al., 2024), and/or patterns of denied opportunities or promotions that cannot be attributed to merit (Phillips, 2022, 2024a, 2024b). For women academics, particularly those from marginalised groups, these experiences strike at the core of identity (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005), challenging not only their professional status but their fundamental sense of self and belonging within academic spaces. These experiences create a state of captivity, where women academics often find themselves trapped by professional necessity within institutions where harm occurs, with limited ability to escape or alter the harmful conditions (Crabtree & Shiel, 2019).

Intersectional Power Dynamics

The interaction between gender and other identity categories creates distinct experiences that cannot be understood through single-axis frameworks (Collins, 2017; Crenshaw, 1991). For women academics who hold multiple marginalised identities, experiences of institutional power often reflect complex intersections that create qualitatively different forms of marginalisation requiring sophisticated analytical frameworks. In academic settings, this manifests through sustained exposure to hostile work environments where women’s presence is treated as intrusive or unwelcome (Phillips, 2024a), ongoing patterns of sexual harassment or intimidation that may be constructed as minor in isolation but create persistent threat (Karami et al., 2020), systematic devaluation of contributions, particularly in men-dominated fields or methodological approaches (Fotaki, 2013), persistent microaggressions that question competence or belonging (Pololi & Jones, 2010), and/or career-threatening power imbalances that create conditions of prolonged vulnerability (Franken et al., 2023).

Practical Strategies and Application to Research

Before entering research relationships with women academics, it is imperative that researchers who identify as men develop a deep understanding of how gendered power structures operate within higher education and their effects on women’s academic experiences. This requires thoroughly reviewing scholarly literature on institutional sexism, systematic exclusion, and structural discrimination in academic contexts. Rather than focusing solely on dramatic incidents, researchers must also understand how power operates through everyday mechanisms including questioning of women’s competence and expertise, exclusion from informal networks and decision-making processes, strategic withholding of resources and opportunities, and institutional practices that privilege masculine ways of knowing and being. Particular attention should be paid to how these power dynamics may vary at the intersections of gender with race, ethnicity, sexuality, ability status, and other marginalised identities (Owusu-Kwarteng et al., 2024), recognising that intersectional identities create qualitatively different experiences of institutional power.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in my research focusing on gendered power structrures within academia, examining how institutional hierarchies, informal networks, and cultural practices systematically advantage men while disadvantaging women across different career stages, institutional types, and academic fields (Phillips, 2022, 2024b). This review extended beyond documenting discrimination to analyse how seemingly neutral academic practices reproduce gendered power imbalances. Particular attention was paid to understanding how extreme manifestations of power abuse, including sexual harassment and assault, emerge from and are enabled by broader structural inequalities rather than treating such incidents as isolated events.

Beyond academic research, scholars should also engage with women academics’ personal narratives published in popular media, reports from professional organisations, and institutional climate surveys to understand how power operates in specific contexts. Consulting with women’s advocacy groups on campus such as women’s and gender equity centres can illuminate how broader power structures manifest within particular institutional cultures. I engaged directly with institutional representatives including women’s centres and diversity offices to understand how national patterns of gender-based marginalisation manifest within specific institutional contexts. I attended events featuring women faculty and administrators sharing their experiences, approaching these as learning opportunities rather than research sites, and maintaining awareness of how my presence as a researcher who identifies as a man might influence these spaces. It is equally important to situate these contemporary power dynamics within the broader historical context of women’s systematic exclusion from, and marginalisation within, the academy (Phillips, 2022). Understanding this legacy of institutional sexism and how it continues to shape academic cultures through embedded practices and implicit norms is essential for appreciating the structural power imbalances that researchers who identify as men bring to research interactions.

Critical examination of researcher privilege and positionality must extend beyond surface-level acknowledgements to deep interrogation of how structural advantages shape every aspect of the research process. The privileges of identifying as a man in academia, combined with researcher authority, create multiple power differentials requiring careful analysis (Jacobson & Mustafa, 2019; Owusu-Kwarteng et al., 2024). How might these intersecting privileges shape how one approaches research design, participant recruitment, and data interpretation? What assumptions about authority, credibility, and expertise might unconsciously influence research interactions? How do institutional hierarchies position men researchers in relation to women participants? Grappling with these questions represents a necessary foundation for power-conscious research practice. At the beginning of the research project, as per the recommendations proposed by Burgess-Limerick and Burgess-Limerick (1998), I compiled a comprehensive reflexivity statement examining my positioning within academic power structures, my observations of how gendered dynamics operate within higher education, and my motivations for engaging in this research as someone who benefits from the very systems being studied. This process involved analysing my institutional privileges, examining how my gender identity grants access to informal networks and institutional credibility, and critically assessing potential blind spots created by my structural position.

While the acknowledgement of these power dynamics through reflexive practices (Dörfler & Stierand, 2021; Vagle, 2009) does not eliminate their influence on the research process, it enables transparent engagement with how privilege shapes knowledge production (Burgess-Limerick & Burgess-Limerick, 1998; Morrow, 2005). Rather than pursuing impossible objectivity, this approach acknowledges that all research is conducted from particular standpoints and requires explicit attention to how structural positioning influences data collection, analysis, and interpretation. As a researcher who identifies as a man within masculinised academic contexts, I recognised the imperative to continuously examine how my institutional positioning shapes research relationships. While Willig (2013) states the original intent of reflexive bracketing was to identify these assumptions and set them aside to maintain impartiality in the research process, I argue that power-conscious research requires ongoing engagement with, rather than bracketing of, structural privilege. By adopting critical reflexive practices, I worked to make visible the power dynamics inherent in cross-gender relationships, acknowledging how my position within academic hierarchies both enables certain forms of access and potentially constrains authentic dialogue (Galbin, 2014; McCabe & Holmes, 2009; Morrow, 2005).

For example, my experience as a gay man and academic provided insight into how institutional power operates through both inclusion and exclusion mechanisms. While navigating questions of visibility and belonging within academic spaces, I have observed how institutional cultures can systematically marginalise certain identities while privileging others. However, this personal experience of marginalisation has served primarily to enhance my appreciation for the distinct and often more severe challenges that women face within patriarchal academic structures, rather than assuming equivalence between different forms of institutional oppression. This understanding has informed my commitment to centering women’s expertise about their own experiences while maintaining critical awareness of how my structural privileges shape research interactions. Throughout this preparatory phase, I also engaged in structured reflection and dialogue with my supervisors and colleagues about the complex power dynamics inherent in my position as a researcher who identifies as a man studying women’s experiences of institutional marginalisation. These conversations focused on developing strategies for leveraging institutional privilege responsibly while avoiding the reproduction of gendered power hierarchies within research relationships. This foundational work established the groundwork for conducting power-conscious research that explicitly addresses rather than inadvertently reproduces existing structural inequalities. The implementation of these power-conscious preparation strategies during my research revealed three insights: power dynamics operate continuously but often subtly in research interactions (evidenced by participants qualifying critiques with “…no offense to you personally, but…”), participants possess sophisticated analytical expertise that extends beyond personal experience to institutional understanding, and structural privilege creates paradoxical effects that both enable research access while potentially constraining authentic disclosure. These findings demonstrate that understanding gendered power structures requires ongoing empirical engagement rather than theoretical preparation alone.

Guideline 2: Building Equitable Research Relationships Across Power Differentials

Theoretical Underpinnings: Power Dynamics in Research Relationships

With a grounding in women’s experiences and one’s own positionality, the next step is to carefully design the study environment and processes to maximise participants’ safety and comfort. This is especially critical for men researchers, as the interview dynamic may feel unsafe for women who have experienced harm perpetrated by men in positions of power within academia. This guideline emerges from understanding the intersection of power dynamics and institutional marginalisation in research relationships between men and women academics. These dynamics can mirror and potentially reactivate the very institutional power structures that have been sources of harm (Iantaffi, 2020). When men researchers study women’s experiences in academia, we occupy a paradoxical position, attempting to contribute to gender equity work while simultaneously embodying aspects of the power structures that have historically enabled gender-based marginalisation.

Structural Power Imbalances

The layering of gender-based power differentials over existing academic hierarchies creates complex dynamics that require careful navigation by men researchers (Allam, 2024). These structural imbalances manifest not only through obvious institutional authority but also through subtle ways that men researchers may unconsciously embody and perpetuate traditional power structures (Owusu-Kwarteng et al., 2024). Within academic contexts, these power dynamics operate on multiple levels simultaneously, for example, through institutional hierarchies, methodological authority, and gender relations (Allam, 2024). Men researchers studying women’s experiences in academia must recognise how their presence, despite intentions to challenge gender inequities, can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures. Traditional academic hierarchies, which historically privileged men’s voices and masculine ways of knowing, continue to shape contemporary research relationships in both obvious and subtle ways. The intersection of gender and institutional authority creates particular challenges when men researchers study women’s experiences of marginalisation, discrimination, and/or trauma (Allam, 2024; Owusu-Kwarteng et al., 2024). Even when working explicitly to challenge gender inequities, men researchers’ institutional position and gender identity can unconsciously mirror power structures that have historically silenced or marginalised women’s voices in academic spaces.

Impact on Research Interactions

The process of building and maintaining trust between men researchers and women participants requires particular attention to power-conscious practices throughout the research journey. While trust is crucial in all qualitative research, it takes on additional significance when men study women’s experiences in academia, given the historical and ongoing gender power dynamics within institutional settings (Bucerius, 2013). Building trust begins with initial contact and extends throughout the entire research relationship (Shaw et al., 2020). The first interactions set the tone for how power dynamics will be navigated and how safely participants feel they can share their experiences (Phillips, 2023).

Intersectional Considerations

The interaction between gender-based marginalisation and other forms of oppression creates distinct experiences that cannot be understood through single-axis frameworks (Collins, 2017; Crenshaw, 1991; Simatele, 2022). For women academics who hold multiple marginalised identities, power-based harm often reflects complex intersections of gender with race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability status, and other social locations (Phillips, 2024b). The presence of a researcher who identifies as a man adds another layer of complexity to these intersectional dynamics. Researcher privilege operates differently across various axes of identity, creating unique challenges and considerations for disclosure of experiences of institutional marginalisation (Collins, 2017; Crenshaw, 1991; Simatele, 2022).

Practical Strategies and Application to Research

The process of building trust requires acknowledging what Ademolu (2024) calls the web of relationships constructed in the field. For men working with women participants, this means explicitly addressing power differentials at the outset, creating opportunities for participants to question the researchers’ motivations and approach, establishing clear protocols for participant control over their narratives, regular check-ins about comfort levels and boundaries, and maintaining awareness of how one's presence as a man might influence participant responses.

Power-Conscious Assessment Practices

Unlike standard reflexivity practices that focus on general researcher influence, power-conscious research requires systematic assessment of how gender-based privilege specifically shapes every interaction. Throughout my research, I maintained detailed reflexive documentation that went beyond general self-reflection to examine specific moments where power dynamics became visible and required adaptive responses. My reflexive journal revealed consistent patterns of how participants navigated the power differential inherent in our cross-gender interactions. First, participants frequently prefaced critiques of men colleagues with protective language. For example, one participant said, “I don’t want to sound like I’m man-hating, but…” before describing systematic exclusion from departmental meetings. Another said, “I know you’re probably different, but…” when discussing experiences of having their expertise questioned by men supervisors. These qualifiers revealed participants’ awareness of potential discomfort around sharing gender-based discrimination with a male researcher. Second, several participants appeared to test my reactions to gender-based discrimination before sharing more sensitive experiences. One early-career academic described a relatively minor incident of interrupted speech, then paused to observe my response before revealing more serious experiences of having her research contributions attributed to men colleagues. This pattern suggested participants were assessing whether I could handle more significant accounts of institutional marginalisation. Third, participants often sought confirmation that their experiences would be represented fairly, with statements like “You understand that this isn’t about all men, right?” or “I hope you won’t think I’m being too harsh about the department”. This pattern revealed ongoing concern about potential misrepresentation or defensive responses from men researchers.

Rather than ignoring these dynamics or treating them as methodological obstacles, I developed specific responses that acknowledged and worked with these power differentials. For example, when participants used qualifying language, I responded with statements like, “I recognise that sharing these experiences with someone who identifies as a man adds complexity to our conversation. Please know that I am here to listen and learn about institutional patterns, not to defend or minimise your experiences”. When participants tested my understanding, I validated their analytical expertise, “Your analysis of how these patterns operate institutionally is exactly the kind of insight that is crucial for understanding how power works in academic settings. I appreciate you sharing this with me”. I also regularly reminded participants of their control over representation, “I want to emphasise that you will have opportunities to review how your experiences are represented and to modify anything that does not accurately reflect your perspective”.

Physical Environment

Site selection is a key consideration that goes beyond standard comfort measures. The physical spaces where interviews take place should be private and secure but also feel welcoming and conducive to building rapport (Legerski & Bunnell, 2010). Partnering with organisations that advocate for and support women on campus can be hugely valuable in identifying appropriate locations. In my study, I worked with the participants, as well as the universities, to either access private study rooms, or, to meet in a location where the women faculty and staff were comfortable (e.g., their office). For online interviews, participants were able to choose their preferred location. I scheduled interviews at times that were most convenient and least stressful for participants (e.g., avoiding peak work hours and high-pressure periods). While acknowledging the reality that academic work often lacks clear ‘down periods’, I prioritised flexibility in scheduling, offering multiple time slots across different weeks and being prepared to reschedule as needed to accommodate the unpredictable demands of academic life. This approach recognised that while there may not be an ‘ideal’ time for research participation in academia, creating flexible scheduling options and being responsive to participants’ changing needs can help minimise additional stress during the research process.

Interpersonal Dynamics

From the initial recruitment stages, transparency and clarity are essential for cultivating trust (Willig, 2013). All communications should comprehensively explain the study purpose, what participation will entail, how data will be protected and used, and any available participant supports. It is also crucial to emphasise the voluntary nature of the study and participants’ rights to skip questions or withdraw at any time without penalty. Providing this detailed information upfront allows women to make truly informed and empowered decisions about participation. Trust is further fostered through the demeanour and actions of the researcher during the interview process. Reliability (e.g., showing up on time, following through on commitments), consistency (e.g., maintaining professionalism, adhering to protocols), and a non-judgemental stance are all crucial (Alessi & Kahn, 2023; Bashir, 2020). Interviewers should express empathy and validate experiences while refraining from offering opinions, interpretations, or advice.

Explicit Power Redistribution

Standard rapport-building focuses on comfort, but power-conscious research requires actively working against institutional hierarchies. This involved offering participants choice over all logistical aspects (location, timing, interview format), beginning each interview by acknowledging my structural advantages, “As someone who benefits from the very systems we are discussing, I want you to know that you are the expert here…”, and creating multiple exit strategies where participants could pause, redirect, or end interviews without explanation. For example, my reflexive journal entry here reflects such an instance,

[Participant name] became visibly tense when I asked about departmental culture. I noticed her shoulders tighten and she looked away. Rather than continuing with my planned questions, I said, “I’m noticing this might be bringing up some difficult experiences. Would it be helpful to take a different direction, or would you prefer to pause?”. She responded that she appreciated me noticing and wanted to continue but felt worried about sounding negative. I reassured her that analysing institutional problems is not about being negative but about understanding systemic patterns. This seemed to help her relax and led to her sharing crucial insights about informal exclusion practices.

Power-Conscious Consent and Relationship Building

I established practices that acknowledged gender and institutional power dynamics throughout all research relationships. During recruitment and initial meetings, I openly discussed how my position as a researcher identifying as a man might impact interactions (“I recognise that as a man studying women’s experiences in academia, there are power dynamics at play that we should address openly”). The concept of ongoing consent was central to this approach, treating consent as a continuing process requiring regular renewal rather than a one-time event (Morse et al., 2008). I developed cross-gender specific check-ins (“Given that we’re discussing experiences of gender-based marginalisation, how are you feeling about sharing these experiences with me?”) and explicit opportunities for course correction (“If there are topics that feel inappropriate to discuss across our gender difference, please let me know”). These practices included evaluating comfort levels, clear communication about rights to pause, skip topics, or withdraw, transcript review opportunities, and collaborative decision-making about representation.

Power-sharing strategies were also developed in the interview settings to deliberately counteract traditional academic hierarchies. These included allowing participants to choose interview locations and timing, following participant leads in terms of pace and direction of conversation, creating flexible interview guides that can adapt to participants needs, sharing control over the research narrative, and establishing clear boundaries and expectations. Throughout the research process, I also explicitly acknowledged participant expertise by emphasising that participants are the experts of their own experiences, their knowledge is valuable and central to the research process, their interpretations of their experiences are valid and important, they have agency in how their stories are told and used, and that their expertise extends beyond their personal experiences to include understanding of institutional contexts. For example, my reflexive journal entry here demonstrates such an instance,

Today’s interview with [participant who identified as a woman of colour] revealed how my presence as a man, white, and a researcher created multiple layers of power differential. When discussing experiences of racialised sexism, she initially provided only surface-level responses. I acknowledged these dynamics by stating I recognised that as someone who does not share these experiences of racism or sexism, there may be aspects of the experiences that are difficult to share with me. I acknowledged being grateful for whatever the participant felt comfortable sharing and let them know there was no pressure to educate me about experiences I have not lived. This acknowledgement seemed to create space for her to share more detailed institutional analysis.

I paid particular attention to situations where my identity as a man became salient in interviews. This included moments when participants hesitated before sharing experiences of gender discrimination, instances where they qualified their responses with phrases like ‘no offense, but…’, times when they sought reassurance about confidentiality, and situations where they tested my understanding of gender issues. Each of these moments required careful navigation and reflection on how my positionality was influencing the interaction. For example, when one participant paused mid-sentence while describing a gendered microaggression, I acknowledged the potential discomfort by saying, “I want to reassure you that I am here to listen and learn from your experience, not to judge or defend, but I also respect if there are things you’d prefer not to share”. This approach created space for authentic sharing – meaning participants could express their experiences without self-censoring due to concerns about my potential defensive reactions or judgement – while reinforcing participant agency.

Adaptive Interview Strategies

I developed interview protocols with awareness of how different aspects of identity might shape both the content and process of disclosure about institutional marginalisation, carefully considering how questions were framed, what examples were used, and how follow-up probes were structured. Rather than using static interview protocols, I developed adaptive questioning strategies that responded to power dynamics as they emerged. When participants showed hesitation around gender-related topics, I shifted from direct questions to more open framings like “What has shaped your experience in this department?” rather than “Have you experienced discrimination?”. When intersectional dynamics became apparent, I adapted follow-up probes to acknowledge complexity, “It sounds like multiple factors may be influencing this experience”, rather than assuming single-axis explanations. I created space for participants to define which aspects of their identity felt most relevant to specific experiences, avoiding conflating different forms of marginalisation while recognising their interaction. The sequencing of topics allowed participants to gradually build trust while maintaining control over how their intersecting identities and experiences were discussed.

Several participants explicitly noted the difference that power-conscious approaches made to their research experience, for example, stating, “I was worried about talking to a man about these experiences, but the way you acknowledged that complexity upfront made me feel like you actually understood the dynamics at play”, and “Most researchers just ask questions and expect answers. Having you explicitly recognise your position and give me control over the process felt really different”. Participants also increasingly shared detailed institutional analysis rather than just personal experiences, and several participants contacted me after interviews to share additional insights they had thought of. Multiple participants also explicitly stated that they felt their expertise was valued rather than just their personal stories. Given how easily trust can be damaged if power differentials are not carefully managed, I also implemented additional strategies to address potential challenges. This includes remaining attentive to verbal and non-verbal cues about comfort levels, being prepared to adjust research processes based on participant feedback and maintaining awareness of how their presence might influence participant responses (Flick, 2022). I created multiple channels for participants to express concerns or discomfort with regular opportunities for redirection during interviews (Whitney & Evered, 2022).

My data analysis approach reflected intersectional awareness, moving beyond additive models to examine how different aspects of identity created qualitatively distinct experiences of institutional marginalisation. This required analytical frameworks that captured the complexity of how various forms of oppression interact within institutional contexts (Collins, 2017; Crenshaw, 1991). I modified traditional member checking approaches to ensure participants had meaningful opportunities to shape how their complex identities and experiences are represented, including multiple rounds of feedback, opportunities to contextualise experiences within broader social and institutional patterns, and explicit attention to how power dynamics influenced the interpretation process (Caretta & Pérez, 2019; DeCino & Waalkes, 2019). Through careful attention to the above elements of trust building, I worked to create research environments that supported authentic dialogue while remaining mindful of power-conscious principles and power dynamics.

A final element of establishing safety is ensuring participants are aware of and can easily access appropriate support services (Ponic & Jategaonkar, 2012). Given the sensitive nature of the interview topic, it was expected that some women might experience distress and wish to seek mental health services. Therefore, I compiled a list of free and low-cost mental health services both on and off campus, including options specifically for women and survivors of gender-based violence. This list was provided to all participants as part of the informed consent process and reiterated at the start and conclusion of each interview.

Guideline 3: Conducting Power-Conscious Interview Practices

Theoretical Underpinnings: Power Dynamics in Research Interactions

This guideline addresses the practical challenges of maintaining power-conscious approaches throughout the interview process, informed by an understanding of how structural inequalities manifest in research interactions. Without careful attention to how power operates in research contexts, even well-intentioned research can inadvertently reproduce the very institutional dynamics that marginalise participants. Research interactions inherently involve power differentials, but these become particularly complex when researchers hold structural privilege relative to their participants (Shaw et al., 2020). When men researchers study women’s experiences in academia, multiple layers of power differential intersect, such as gender-based privilege, institutional authority as researchers, and often additional forms of academic capital or status (Berger, 2013).

These power dynamics can manifest in subtle but significant ways during interviews. Being questioned by someone in a position of relative privilege about experiences of marginalisation can unconsciously recreate institutional dynamics where women’s accounts are scrutinised, questioned, or required to meet standards of proof, dynamics that are often part of the original experiences of institutional harm (Allam, 2024; Owusu-Kwarteng et al., 2024). The research interview itself can mirror hierarchical academic relationships where knowledge extraction occurs without reciprocal benefit to those providing the knowledge (Fine & Weis, 1996). Additionally, the presence of a researcher who represents the demographic group historically associated with institutional advantage may influence how participants frame their experiences, potentially leading to self-censoring or protective strategies that limit authentic disclosure (Legerski & Bunnell, 2010).

Power-conscious interview practices recognise that traditional research approaches, which position researchers as neutral experts gathering objective data, can reproduce rather than challenge existing hierarchies (Muhammad et al., 2015). This understanding provides the foundation for developing interview approaches that actively work to redistribute rather than concentrate power, centering participant agency and expertise while maintaining awareness of how structural privilege shapes every aspect of the research interaction. By explicitly acknowledging and actively addressing these dynamics, men researchers can better position themselves to contribute meaningfully to gender equity research while ensuring that their methodological approaches align with their commitment to challenging rather than reproducing institutional inequalities.

Practical Strategies and Application to Research

While a strong foundation of safety and trust is necessary, it must also be actively monitored and maintained throughout the interview itself. Power-conscious interviewing requires a delicate balance of creating space for participants to share difficult experiences if they wish, without ever pressuring them to do so (Alessi & Kahn, 2023). A common strategy is to begin with broad, less emotionally laden questions and gradually progress to more sensitive topics, allowing time to build comfort and rapport (Flick, 2022). Following this approach, interviews in my studies started by asking women academics to describe their general career trajectory and roles. The conversation then naturally segued to the rewards and challenges of their work, with prompts like “Tell me about a time you felt especially valued or supported in your department” and “Describe a situation that was particularly stressful or difficult for you as a woman in your position”. Notably, I never directly inquired about specific harmful experiences, allowing participants to determine how much they wished to share with me. When participants disclosed difficult experiences, I listened empathetically, validating the institutional reality of their experiences (e.g., “I can only imagine how painful that must have been”) without probing for additional details unless participants chose to elaborate and confirmed their willingness to discuss these experiences further.

Throughout this process, I frequently reminded participants of their right to decline to answer any question or to pause or terminate the interview at any point. Verbal and non-verbal cues of discomfort were carefully monitored, and breaks were suggested when participants appeared to be getting overwhelmed. At one point, when a participant became visibly distressed while recounting a sexual harassment incident, I gently interrupted to ask, “I notice this is bringing up a lot for you. Would it be helpful for us to pause here and shift to a different topic? Or is there another way I can best support you in this moment?”. The participant paused, took a deep breath, and responded, “Actually, thank you for noticing. I think I need a moment to ground myself”. We took a brief break during which she engaged in some breathing exercises. When we resumed, she noted. “I appreciate that you didn’t push me to continue or act like nothing happened. Most people, especially men, just want me to get through the story quickly”. This response highlighted how power-conscious checking-in practices were not only protective but actively appreciated by participants who had experienced dismissive responses from others, particularly men colleagues.

Throughout the research process, participants indicated several forms of support that were particularly meaningful in the cross-gender research context. Validation without minimisation emerged as crucial. Participants consistently noted appreciation when I acknowledged the institutional reality of their experiences without offering quick solutions or defensive responses. As one participant said to me, “You didn’t try to explain it away or tell me it wasn’t that bad, which is what usually happens when I talk to men about these things”. Control over pacing and depth was another key preference. Multiple participants commented positively on being given explicit permission to determine how much detail to share, with one noting, “I felt like I could tell my story my way, not the way someone else wanted to hear it”. Acknowledgement of expertise was consistently valued, particularly when I explicitly recognised participants’ analytical insights about institutional patterns rather than treating them solely as sources of personal experience. Several participants noted surprise and appreciation when I stated, “Your analysis of how these dynamics operate institutionally is exactly the kind of insight that is crucial for understanding systemic patterns”. Flexibility in interview structure also proved important, with participants appreciating the ability to revisit earlier topics or redirect conversations when they felt ready to explore more sensitive areas.

Equally instructive were instances were my approaches were less effective or required adjustment based on participant feedback. Early in the research process, I attempted to use overly formal consent check-ins (“How are you feeling about our discussion of these topics?”) which one participant noted felt “clinical and distancing”. This feedback led me to adopt more natural, conversational approaches to ongoing consent. Another participant indicated that my initial tendency to provide too much context about power dynamics at the beginning of interviews felt “patronising”, leading me to allow these discussions to emerge more organically. These adjustments demonstrate the importance of remaining responsive to individual participant preferences rather than applying standardised approaches to power-conscious practice.

Research interactions sometimes shifted in ways that required immediate adaptation beyond standard power-conscious practices. These moments often revealed the most sophisticated forms of participant analysis, requiring approaches that honoured rather than managed emotional responses as forms of institutional critique. When one participant became furious while describing how her research was consistently attributed to male colleagues, rather than treating her anger as problematic, I reframed it as analytical insight: “Your emotions seem to be revealing something important about how intellectual theft operates systematically in academia. What do you think your anger is teaching us about these patterns?”. She paused and responded, “My anger is actually my analysis. It is telling me this is not random, it is systematic”. This approach transformed what could have been seen as emotional overwhelm into sophisticated institutional critique, demonstrating how intense emotions often reflect deep understanding of structural patterns rather than individual distress. Another participant went completely silent for several seconds after describing being systematically silenced in departmental meetings. Instead of filling the silence or moving on, I acknowledged its significance, “Your silence right now feels meaningful. What is this silence telling us about these experiences?”. She eventually said, “I’m practicing not filling the space for your comfort. This is what resistance looks like”. Her silence became both a form of analysis and a demonstration of institutional dynamics, showing how participants’ responses could embody the very power structures being discussed. These examples illustrate how power-conscious interview practices require recognising that participants’ emotional and behavioural responses often contain sophisticated analytical insights about institutional power. Rather than managing or redirecting these responses, creating space for them to be explored as forms of expertise can yield deeper understanding of how structural inequalities operate in academic contexts.

I worked to protect what I term the ‘authentic voice’ of participants throughout my research process, meaning representations that accurately reflected participants’ own understandings, interpretations, and framings of their experiences rather than impositions of my analytical frameworks or assumptions (Morrow, 2005). Given the power differentials inherent in cross-gender research relationships, there was particular risk that my interpretations might overshadow or distort participants’ own meaning—making processes. I distinguished between participants’ experiential knowledge (their lived experiences and personal interpretations) and my analytical interpretations, maintaining clear boundaries between these different forms of knowledge throughout data collection and analysis. I also employed what Fine and Weis (1996) call ‘working the hyphen’ between researcher and participant, continuously examining how my positionality might be shaping interpretation while centering participants’ own analytical insights about institutional patterns. Working with participants to acknowledge their lived experiences and contexts, and how they use their voice to disrupt oppressive practices, assisted in moving beyond providing purely theoretical understanding to demonstrating how participants’ voices worked through new authentic practices that challenged institutional marginalisation.

I used member checking not merely for accuracy verification, but as a collaborative process where participants could clarify, expand upon, or modify how their experiences were represented. To address potential concerns about participant labour and data extraction, transcript review was framed as an opportunity for participants to maintain control over their representation rather than as a service to the research. Participants were explicitly told that review was entirely optional and that non-participation would not affect the research. Many participants noted that the review process felt empowering, allowing them to see their experiences validated in academic discourse. Several participants used the review process as an extension of our collaborative dialogue rather than unpaid labour. While no monetary compensation was offered as this could have created coercive dynamics, participants retained ongoing control over how their contributions were used and represented.

With the typically emergent nature of qualitative research, it is important for researchers to keep a detailed record of the development of the research process (Yardley, 2017). As such, I kept an audit paper trail which documented the research process as well as the rationale of the research through supervisory notes, recordings, field notes, reflections, research flyers/posters, and emails. Additionally, member checking was utilised, where data and interpretations were returned to the participants to seek feedback on fairness of representation, addressing the confirmability and dependability of the findings (Locke & Velamuri, 2009). The feedback provided from the participants who responded was integrated into the findings. The question of interpretive authority becomes particularly complex when men analyse women’s experiences. Building on Ademolu’s (2024) approach to member checking, I implemented several strategies to ensure interpretive validity, such as sharing preliminary analyses with participants for feedback, engaging women colleagues in peer debriefing sessions, maintaining a reflexive journal documenting my analytical decisions and potential biases, and being explicit about the limitations of my perspective as a researcher who identifies as a man.

Guideline 4: Engaging in Critical Reflexivity About Privilege and Positionality

Theoretical Underpinnings: Power-Conscious Self-Analysis and Research Accountability

While the previous guidelines focused on external research practices – understanding power structures, building equitable relationships, and conducting interviews – this guideline addresses the internal reflexive work that must operate continuously throughout all other aspects of power-conscious research. Unlike the relationship-building or interview techniques discussed earlier, reflexivity requires ongoing self-analysis that cannot be compartmentalised into specific research phrases but must instead run as a continuous thread throughout every aspect of the research process, from initial design through knowledge dissemination.

This guideline addresses the ongoing critical examination of how structural privilege shapes every aspect of the research process, from initial design through knowledge dissemination. For men researchers in gender equity work, reflexivity extends beyond general self-awareness to become a systematic analysis of how gender-based privilege influences research relationships, interpretive frameworks, and institutional positioning (Ademolu, 2024). This involves recognising that structural advantages are not static personal characteristics but active forces that continuously shape research interactions in ways that can either reproduce or challenge existing power structures.

Power-conscious reflexivity requires understanding how institutional privilege operates through seemingly neutral research practices. Men researchers benefit from academic systems that historically privileged masculine ways of knowing, granted unearned credibility to male voices, and positioned men as default authorities on knowledge production (Sprague, 2016). This positioning creates both opportunities and responsibilities that must be continuously examined rather than simply acknowledged.

Within this framework, harm is conceptualised not only as individual psychological damage but as systematic institutional practices that marginalise, exclude, or devalue women academics through structural power arrangements. This includes exclusion from informal networks, systematic undermining of expertise, appropriation of intellectual contributions, and institutional gaslighting that denies discriminatory experiences (Allam, 2024; Owusu-Kwarteng et al., 2024). Rather than focusing on trauma responses to these experiences, this approach examines how research processes can either reproduce these harmful institutional patterns or actively challenge them through power-conscious methodological practices. For example, this can include feelings of guilt or complicity when hearing about harm perpetuated by other men in academic settings (Kingsman & Davis, 2024), defensive reactions when confronting evidence of systemic men’s privilege (Gemignani, 2011), and confusion about how to respond authentically while maintaining appropriate professional boundaries (Dery, 2020). Men researchers may experience heightened distress when recognising how their own unearned advantages have contributed to systems that enable gender-based harm (Estevan-Reina et al., 2021). This awareness can lead to paralysis or over-compensation in research interactions if not properly managed. Additionally, men researchers may struggle with feelings of powerlessness when confronting institutional patterns of gender-based discrimination, particularly when their privileged position creates expectations about their ability to effect change (Giri, 2025). The challenge lies not in eliminating privilege, which is impossible, but in developing practices that leverage institutional advantages responsibly while actively working to redistribute rather than concentrate power (Muhammad et al., 2015).

Within academic institutions, men simultaneously occupy positions of privilege through their gender identity and potential positions of marginalisation through other aspects of identity or institutional status (Klarsfeld, 2014; Pease, 2015). The complexity of researcher identity in power-conscious work extends beyond simple recognition of advantages to ongoing negotiation of authority, credibility, and representation. As institutional insiders, men may have access to certain forms of academic capital and credibility that can benefit the research (Dery, 2020). However, their outsider status in relation to women’s experiences requires particular humility and openness to learning (Ademolu, 2024). This balance becomes especially delicate when studying experiences of systematic inequalities, where researcher identity can either facilitate or inhibit participant disclosure (Shaw et al., 2020). Men researchers must navigate the tension between contributing meaningfully to gender equity research while avoiding the reproduction of masculine authority patterns that have historically marginalised women’s voices and expertise. This requires developing what can be termed reflexive accountability, systematic practices that ensure structural privilege serves rather than subverts the goals of challenging institutional inequalities (Thomas, 2024).

Practical Strategies and Application to Research

Systematic Privilege Analysis

Power-conscious reflexivity requires moving beyond general acknowledgements of privilege to detailed analysis of how structural advantages operate throughout the research process. The practice of reflexivity in gender research must go beyond occasional self-reflection to become an integrated aspect of research practice. Drawing on Ademolu’s (2024) model of critical reflexivity, men researchers should regularly question assumptions about their understanding of women’s experiences, document how their presence shapes research interactions, seek feedback from participants and colleagues about their approach, acknowledge moments of discomfort or uncertainty as opportunities for learning, and remain open to revising their understanding based on participant feedback. Throughout my research, I maintained a reflexive journal that specifically tracked how my positioning as a man influenced research interactions, institutional access, and interpretive authority, while also processing the complex emotional responses that emerged from confronting institutional inequalities.

Throughout my research, I also documented my cognitive, emotional, and somatic reactions to participants’ stories. Common themes included anger and hopelessness in the face of systemic injustices, sorrow and horror at the extent of women’s victimisation, and a sense of powerlessness, at times, to ‘fix’ things. At times, I noticed a pull to dissociate or turn away from the material, which served as an indicator that I needed to step back and engage in grounding and self-care practices like breathing exercises, taking a walk in nature, or sharing anonymised experiences with a trusted colleague.

I systematically documented moments when my gender identity granted unearned access or credibility. For example, when department heads readily agreed to meetings that participants noted would likely be denied to women researchers, or when men colleagues offered unsolicited support for my research while dismissing similar work by women scholars. These observations revealed how institutional privilege operates through everyday interactions rather than dramatic incidents. My reflexive journal captured both the practical implications of these advantages and my emotional responses to recognising how deeply embedded these patterns were within academic institutions.

I regularly examined how my analytical frameworks might reflect masculine ways of knowing that could overshadow participants’ own interpretive expertise. When developing themes from interviews, I documented instances where my initial interpretations differed from participants’ own analyses, using these discrepancies to examine how privilege might be shaping my understanding. This process often generated feelings of discomfort as I confronted how my academic training had privileged abstract theorising over experiential knowledge, requiring me to sit with uncertainty about my own analytical assumptions.

I monitored my emotional reactions to challenging feedback, particularly moments when I felt defensive about criticism of men’s behaviour or institutional practices. These reactions become opportunities for deeper analysis of how privilege creates investment in existing systems, even among researchers committed to challenging them. Common emotional themes included anger and hopelessness when confronting the extent of systemic injustices, guilt when recognising my own complicitly in harmful systems, and a sense of powerlessness when realising the limitations of individual research in addressing institutional patterns.

Collaborative Accountability Practices

I established regular meetings with women colleagues specifically to examine how privilege might be influencing my research approach. These conversations focused not on general support but on systematic analysis of potential blind spots created by my structural positioning. Regular peer debriefing and consultation were highly valuable for maintaining perspective and managing the complex emotional responses that emerged from this work (Davys & Beddoe, 2020). I met weekly with my supervisors, as well as a team of other faculty studying gender-based challenges in academia to process reactions, troubleshoot any issues arising with participants, and ensuring the study was proceeding in a safe and ethical manner for all involved. Also, beyond standard member checking, I created opportunities for participants to provide feedback specifically about how my identity as a man influenced our research relationship. Questions included, “How did discussing these experiences with a researcher who identifies as a man compare to your expectations?” and “Were there moments where our gender difference felt particularly salient or problematic?”. These conversations often revealed both the value and limitations of cross-gender research relationships while helping me understand how my presence shaped participants’ comfort levels and disclosure patterns.

Managing Complicity and Institutional Positioning

Regular reflection on how I benefited from the very systems I was studying revealed ongoing complicity that required continuous examination rather than one-time acknowledgement. For example, recognising that institutional support for my research partly reflected confidence in men researchers’ ability to remain objective about gender issues. I also worked with trusted colleagues to explore how my own identity as a man was being impacted by the research, unpacking reflexive feelings of guilt, defensiveness, and a desire to distance from the realities of men’s privilege and power. I also developed strategies to explore how my own identity as a man was being impacted by the research, unpacking reflexive feelings of guilt, defensiveness, and a desire to distance from the realities of men’s privilege and power. Ultimately, engaging in this type of reflection not only serves the researcher’s wellbeing, but can enhance the quality of the research itself. By interrogating my own social location and responses, I was able to more fully understand and bracket my own perspectives in order to centre and uplift women’s voices and experiences. The self-work also bolstered my capacity to be fully present and engaged during interviews, rather than tuning out or turning away from the difficult emotions and content being shared.

Ultimately, engaging in this type of systematic reflection not only serves researcher accountability but enhances the quality of the research itself. By interrogating my own social location and responses, I was able to more fully understand how privilege shapes analytical frameworks while working to centre and uplift women’s voices and experiences. This reflexive work also bolstered my capacity to be fully present and engaged during interviews, rather than turning away from difficult emotions and content, while maintaining awareness of how my institutional positioning influenced every aspect of the research process. These practices demonstrated that power-conscious reflexivity requires ongoing systematic analysis rather than periodic self-reflection, focusing specifically on how structural privilege shapes research processes and outcomes. The goal is not to achieve innocence from privilege but to ensure that advantages serve the broader project of challenging rather than reproducing institutional inequalities.

In Summary: Concluding Sentiments

These guidelines presented in this paper demonstrate how theoretical understanding of power dynamics in academic contexts must be integrated with practical research strategies. The integration of these four guidelines demonstrates how power-conscious research requires systematic methodological innovation rather than ad hoc adaptations to traditional approaches. Understanding gendered power structures establishes the analytical foundation for recognising how institutional inequalities manifest in research contexts. Building equitable relationships operationalises feminist commitments to non-extractive research practices. Power-conscious interview techniques translate theoretical awareness into concrete interactional strategies. Critical reflexivity ensures ongoing accountability throughout the research process. Together, these guidelines illustrate how methodological rigour in cross-gender research depends not on neutrality or distance, but on explicit engagement with power dynamics and structural positioning. This framework contributes to broader methodological discussions about conducting ethical research across privilege differentials while demonstrating that power-conscious approaches represent fundamental components of rigorous qualitative research design rather than optional ethical considerations.

By organising each guideline to begin with theoretical underpinnings followed by practical implementation, I have attempted to show how critical theories of power and feminist methodology mutually inform ethical research approaches across gender differences. My experiences implementing these guidelines have revealed that moments of tension and challenge, such as when participants questioned my ability to understand their experiences, or expressed concerns about power dynamics, became critical learning opportunities for developing more equitable research relationships. The four key dimensions outlined in this paper offer a framework for responsible engagement with gender equity research that explicitly addresses rather than reproduces existing power structures. These guidelines should be understood not as a definitive solution but as a contribution to ongoing dialogue about how researchers who hold structural privilege can contribute responsibly and ethically to social justice research while maintaining rigorous attention to power dynamics and potential harm. Through sustained commitment to the practices outlined in this paper, we can work toward research that not only avoids reinforcing existing power structures but actively contributes to their transformation.